Remember that the information may be produced under a protective order, in which case the public will never know. Since it's confidential information, it wouldn't be surprising at all.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Wins Judgement Against Psystar for Mac OS X Copyright Infringement
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Remember that the information may be produced under a protective order, in which case the public will never know. Since it's confidential information, it wouldn't be surprising at all.
When Apple licensed their OS to clone makers Macs were their only line of business. Now they have the iPhone and iPod to back that up and a lot of money tucked away for a rainy day. Licensing now would not be as risky as back then.
Saying that the hardware and software are one ecosystem is actually an argument for licensing OSX. If the integration of OS and hardware is as good as Apple say it is, surely that will sell itself? Surely Apple's own PCs will be so much better than the clones that people will prefer Apple's systems to the clones? The answer is of course no. Apple inflate their prices hugely, it will be easy to make clones that work just as smoothly as a Macs with perhaps less stylish casing and consumers would gobble them up.
The warm fuzzy feeling you get is achieved by Apple keeping their prices high and therefore their market share is low so they don't attract any viruses.
No it doesn't. If granted it means no trial on a particular claim or counterclaim. There is still a trial on whatever's left over. In this case, if you read the article, there are many claims remaining.
groklaw article said:
They have very little ground to gain and a lot more to lose at trial. I wonder what the Psystar lawyers are telling their clients right now.
B
Guess the latest antics by Psystar didn't win them any favors, idiot even published trade secrets in one of their last filings. And that was after being warned. 
Hope these idiot still insist on going to trial for their claims, or shift to their FL lawsuit, would be rather amusing.
We lost, but we still demand the right to sell clones because Apple is evil, evil I tell you.
Hope these idiot still insist on going to trial for their claims, or shift to their FL lawsuit, would be rather amusing.
We lost, but we still demand the right to sell clones because Apple is evil, evil I tell you.
Is it then morally wrong, according to you, to buy a copy of OS X to upgrade an earlier Mac? Are upgraders depriving Apple of profit on that new copy OS X when they should be buying new hardware as well?
Have you ever upgraded a Mac, rather than bought the OS and the hardware together? Just curious.
It's not morally wrong because Apple allows you to do it. The right to buy future OS versions is priced into the cost of the Mac when you buy it, and priced into the cost of the upgrade version of the OS.
Just like when you buy an OS X box, the price of the OS X box takes into account that you already own an Apple computer.
Well............technically it's not an upgrade since it's a full OS, not dependent on the preexisting OS. However, legally the dvd is an "upgrade" in the sense that by its terms it can only legally be installed on Apple computers which were previously purchased with an Apple OS already installed (and almost universally a "lower grade").
In what way is he wrong?
Do you understand that, if Apple hadn't defended their copyright, they might have lost their IP rights altogether? No, of course you don't.
You are confusing copyright law and trademark law.
Page 12. "Apples licensing agreement is not unduly restrictive."
The judge has ruled that modifying OS X to run on a PC creates a derivative work. That would encompass the Rebel-EFI method.
Then it wouldn't be an Apple now would it?
It would be just another PC, made by Apple, competing against other PC makers that can install the OS on them.
Personally, I don't want to see Apple next to HPs or Dells or Acers, etc. I'd rather they be off by themselves on their own little table or display.
Hackintoshes...
Here's hoping Apple will eventually go after individual hackintosh owners and sue them like the RIAA does music thieves. Get a few large financial awards against individuals and let the others keep looking behinds their backs to see if Apple is gaining on 'em. That would be great!
Here's hoping Apple will eventually go after individual hackintosh owners and sue them like the RIAA does music thieves. Get a few large financial awards against individuals and let the others keep looking behinds their backs to see if Apple is gaining on 'em. That would be great!
The problem is that Microsoft's OEM contracts mean that every PC sold by companies like HP, Dell, Lenovo and others all have a Windows license fee included in their price, whether or not the end-user chooses to run Windows. At one of my former employers we considered buying HP computers with Linux because we already had a license agreement with Microsoft that allowed us to install Windows XP on any machine we wanted so we were paying for the license twice by buying machines with Windows installed. The problem was the PC with Linux was more expensive than the one with Windows because you were paying for two licenses - Windows and Linux.
So each "PC" sold with OS X would be more expensive than with Windows because you have to pay the Windows license fee to Microsoft and then add on the OS X license fee to Apple. Some people might pay for that, but some will not. So that will incentivize Apple to add serial numbers and software activation and tying it all to a specific piece of hardware to curtail piracy, annoying all the people - especially Mac purchasers - who are paying for the product.
Also, by licensing OS X, Apple dilutes the user experience in terms of support. Because they currently control the hardware and the software, when you have a problem with your Mac, you go to one support source - Apple. They are forced to take ownership of the problem. In the case of an OEM, they have a financial incentive to pass you on to Apple who has one to pass you back to the OEM. So you can end up with Apple and the OEM tossing you back and forth like a shuttlecock. Also, will you be able to take an OEM product into an Apple Store for service and support - even if it's clearly an OS issue? If you can, Apple would need to spend a good bit more training Geniuses and those Geniuses might spend more time on each issue, meaning either more Geniuses are needed at the Bar or customers wait longer for a reservation.
And then there comes the hardware support. As annoying as it can be for a 68x00 or PowerPC Mac owner to be forced to replace your machine when Apple stops supporting it, by cutting the "support tail" after a certain period of time, you clean out the cruft in your OS. Windows has to support hardware going back 15 years and that is the source of a not insignificant number of performance and stability issues.
Now Apple could get around this by forcing OEMs to build to a "Reference Design" and selection of hardware so Apple's programmers do not need to write hundreds of drivers each for mice, sound cards, video cards, etc. But those who are hoping to slap OS X on any OEM machine will be in for disappointment.
My first reaction to this would be "Nah, let 'em have their fun", but in light of how it might encourage entities like Psystar in the future, I don't know what to think about this anymore.
Anyway, for those who can set aside a block of time to REALLY read up on all of this:
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20091114101637997
That would be a complete PR disaster for Apple. If they were really worried about it they would have already introduced activation into OS X and pulled out all support for processors and hardware configurations that have not shipped in an actual Mac product (like 10.6.2’s lack of Atom support — except with everything.)
Their lying was beyond amazing.
I remember when we were talking about how Psystar had to be cloning a hacked copy off a master drive, and they actually responded by saying that they loaded the OS individually from an actual Apple DVD every time.
They had zero character, but were definitely characters that deserve a footnote in Apple cloner history.
---
Sort of amazing that they ended up with zero records of their business sales, even a crappy business with piss poor management has some records ... the ones that don't have hidden the evidence with a shredder.
There would be no Windows license cost included in the price of the PCs because the OEMs would be installing OSX for you. Or in the case where you buy a Windows PC to put OSX on it, there have been cases where people had the Windows cost refunded to them.
Apple does not have to provide any support for these OSX PCs, just their own models, that will be another selling point for Apple's own products. The companies making hardware would be developing drivers for their hardware, not Apple, just as they do for Windows now. This also eliminates Apple's need to support older hardware.
And your last point is the point I am making. If OSX was to be made available to other companies then surely their offerings would be inferior to Apple's own and Apple have nothing to fear? But of course Apple have something to fear. They know their markups are huge and other companies could undercut them easily, so they continue to sell OSX on only their own hardware because they can keep charging a fortune for hardware.
That "fortune" they charge pays for, in many cases, superior hardware and materials, and, more importantly, R&D on the OS itself.